《E&S》|Gongbuzeren et al：基于社区的制度创新缓解土地碎片化的影响:来自中国青海省贵南县的两个村庄的案例研究

摘要：集体牧场的私有化导致了牧区土地利用的细碎化。这影响了牧民的放牧策略，并产生了新的制度安排，以应对不断变化的社会-生态系统。青藏高原牧区出现了两种主要的放牧管理制度，为解决草地破碎化问题提供了新的思路。其中一种是允许将已分配到的牧场租赁给他(RTS)人，其基础是为每个家庭已经承包的牧场。另一种是基于社区的放牧配额制度(GQS)，即为每个家庭分配放牧使用配额，而社区仍然保持对牧场的集体使用权。我们对实施这两种不同管理系统的两个案例研究村庄进行了比较，并分析了作为影响指标的植被组成、地上生物量和土壤属性。样带结果表明，RTS处理下的地上生物量高于GQS处理下的地上生物量，但不可食的杂草类和禾草类植物的物种组成转而占优势。RTS草地的碳氮密度低于GQS管理草地。这些差异与牧民对生态变化的感知是一致的。GQS下牧场条件的普遍改善可能与更大的牛群流动性和通过建立社区强制放牧限额来控制牲畜数量有关。RTS下的流动性被限制在几个地块上，由于该系统依赖外部干预，当地对饲养率的监管是最低的。GQS的案例表明，要解决牧场破碎化和改善植被条件的问题，就需要在家庭以及社区规模上运作的机构，允许载畜率的流动和调节。

关键词：以社区为基础的管理; 放牧配额制度; 机构规模; 牧场土地所有制; 牧场转移

Abstract:  The privatization of collectively used rangelands results in fragmentation of land use in pastoral areas. This affects pastoralists’ grazing strategies and results in new institutional arrangements for addressing changing social-ecological systems. Two main systems of grazing management have emerged in the pastoral regions of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau that offer new perspectives on addressing rangeland fragmentation. One allows the renting of parcels of allocated grazing land to or from others (RTS) and is based on having fenced contracted parcels for each household. The other is a community-based grazing quota system (GQS) in which a grazing use quota is allocated to each household, while the community maintains collective use of the rangeland. We compare two case study villages implementing these two different management systems, operating across household and community scales, and analyze vegetation composition, above-ground biomass, and soil properties as indicators of impacts. Transects reveal that aboveground biomass was higher under the RTS than under the GQS, but species composition shifted to dominance by non-palatable forbs and graminoids. The RTS grasslands had lower carbon and nitrogen density compared to GQS-managed grasslands. These differences are consistent with the herder’s perceptions of ecological changes. The general improvement of rangeland conditions under the GQS may be linked to greater herd mobility and the control of livestock numbers through the establishment of community-enforced grazing quotas. Mobility under the RTS is limited to a few parcels, and local regulation of stocking rates is minimal because the system relies on external intervention. The case of GQS suggests that addressing rangeland fragmentation with improved vegetation conditions requires institutions operating at both household and community scales allowing for mobility and regulation of stocking rates.

Key Words：community-based management; grazing quota system; institutional scale; rangeland land tenure; rangeland transfer

《Ecology and Society》目前该期刊影响因子为3.696。论文涉及生态、政治和社会基础有关的主题。

原文链接：

https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/

————END